×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube Threatens To Remove Scientist's Account Over AIDS Deniers' DMCA Claims

samzenpus posted about 2 months ago | from the I-don't-want-to-hear-it dept.

Medicine 268

First time accepted submitter EwanPalmer writes "YouTube is threatening to remove the account of a scientist who made a series of videos debunking claims made in an AIDS denialist movie over copyright infringement disagreement. Myles Power is claiming the producers of controversial 2009 documentary House of Numbers are attempting to censor him by submitting bogus DMCA claims against him. He says his movies do not breach copyright laws because his films are educational and therefore fair use. The 'AIDS denialist' documentary makers say they instead amounted to 'propaganda.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

268 comments

"educational" is not "fair use" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46271377)

Otherwise all that leaked Windows source code would be fair use.

Copyright was a good idea, spoiled.

Trivializing the Holocaust (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46271845)

Using the term denier to compare people to Holocaust deniers trivializes the Holocaust. Get therapy before you hurt someone, you're on the sociopath spectrum

Re:"educational" is not "fair use" (4, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 months ago | (#46271891)

Discussing parts of legally released copyright code on the other hand is fair use. You know, like discussing parts of legally released movie.

Re:"educational" is not "fair use" (2)

hey! (33014) | about 2 months ago | (#46272399)

You should read up on fair use. The purpose and character of the use is the first of four factors in deciding whether fair use applies. A simple copy is merely *derivative*, not *transformative [wikipedia.org]*.

James McCanney (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46271423)

James McCanney is a nut job and deserves to be ignored.

Myles is correct. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46271437)

He made a series of videos for educational commentary, containing scenes from the movie in question. It falls under fair use.

Re:Myles is correct. (5, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#46271805)

He also (apparently) refuses to issue a formal counter-claim asserting they do not violate copyright. If they are fair use, he can counter-claim and be done with it (until they sue him). He's effectively acknowledging that he's violating copyright by refusing to contest the assertions.

Stop using Youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46271445)

Automated perjury with no repercussions? Please.

Re:Stop using Youtube (4, Insightful)

Sowelu (713889) | about 2 months ago | (#46271529)

The guy who was filing the complaints commented on the site. So maybe he's a dick, sure. But if you're willing to give him good faith for his complaint--solely in the capacity that he honestly believes that the video oversteps fair use, and is violating copyright--then he did follow correct procedure.

He tried contacting the guy quite a few times (or so he claims), and after getting no response, he filed the takedown request personally, not through some automated thing. If he has good reason to honestly believe that his rights were violated, it wasn't even perjury. Strangely enough that's what I would do if I thought someone was violating my copyright.

Claiming fair use for informational purposes is really shaky ground. There's a lot of "I know it when I see it", and people like to stretch the definition on either side. I haven't seen the video so I don't know how long the clips are, but if they are too long then yes it's a violation, and I suspect that (much like with parody) there's a line between "informational purposes" and "openly hostile" that the law says you shouldn't cross. Does it cross the line? Hell if I know, but the guy sounds like he's at least justified in filing a claim. Whether a court would find it reasonable or not is up to them, but jackasses get to protect their own rights too.

Re:Stop using Youtube (5, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 months ago | (#46271557)

He tried contacting the guy quite a few times (or so he claims), and after getting no response, he filed the takedown request personally, not through some automated thing. If he has good reason to honestly believe that his rights were violated, it wasn't even perjury.

If he actually didn't try to take down any straight copy of those videos on YouTube, and went after one video using pieces of his work as commented-on quotations, it's at least highly suspicious, don't you think?

Re:Stop using Youtube (3, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | about 2 months ago | (#46271737)

Not at all. A straight copy simply means an opportunity for more people to see his work, which authors normally want. On the other hand someone taking it apart and cutting it up, 'remixing' it to make the author look bad (and whether you think it's justified or not that is clearly what was done) is not something the author normally wants to see.

So no, not suspicious at all, perfectly normal and expected.

The real question here is whether the hostile piece does fall within fair use or not, and that is unfortunately a very complicated legal question, ultimately based on somewhat subjective criteria, so it's not easy to know for sure. It may well require a court to make that determination, which means a lot of lawyer fees for both of the gentlemen involved.

Re:Stop using Youtube (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46272375)

You stupid fucker.

If he doesn't enforce his copyright fairly he loses period. You can't pick and choose.

Dumb cunt.

Re:Stop using Youtube (0)

Arker (91948) | about 2 months ago | (#46272431)

"If he doesn't enforce his copyright fairly he loses period. You can't pick and choose."

Wrong.

You're thinking of Trademark. Copyright does not work the same way.

How do your words taste now? A little bitter? Need some salt?

Re:Stop using Youtube (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46272437)

a) That's trademark law, not copyright.
b) Get help. Really.

Re:Stop using Youtube (3, Informative)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | about 2 months ago | (#46271627)

Automated perjury with no repercussions? Please.

If he has good reason to honestly believe that his rights were violated, it wasn't even perjury.

The perjury clause only applies when the claimant is not the owner of the original content or a legal representative for them. Whether or not the new content infringes -- in belief or in fact -- has no bearing on the matter. There is no penalty for flagging any and all content, no matter how clear its fair-use.

Re:Stop using Youtube (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 2 months ago | (#46271701)

I'm pretty sure that there is no precedent that makes it clear that claimants DO have to consider fair use, other wise there would be an enormous threat of undermining the first amendment.

Re:Stop using Youtube (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 2 months ago | (#46271729)

correction: there is NOW precedent

Non-story (4, Informative)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 2 months ago | (#46271467)

From the article;

YouTube said that Power's account, which has more than 20,000 subscribers, will be removed on 18 February unless they receive a counter-notification disputing these claims against him by that date.

All they have to do is follow the law, file a counter-notification and this all goes away. The summary makes it look like YouTube is the bad guy when all they are doing is following the law and acting on the DMCA claims. It is up to the alleged infringer to counter-claim not the service provider.

He says his movies do not breach copyright laws because his films are educational and therefore fair use.

Tell that to YouTube and the story is over.

Re:Non-story (5, Insightful)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 2 months ago | (#46271559)

Tell that to YouTube and the story is over.

Google doesn't care. They breach their immunity if they don't follow the DMCA process, which involves the counter-notice. He shouldn't tell them anything, he should send in the proper counter-notice and make the denialists sue him then trounce them in court along with counter-suit for damages and legal fees.

If he's not willing to defend what he produced he just doesn't care enough.

Re:Non-story (4, Insightful)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 2 months ago | (#46271603)

Problem might not fact he don't care, its having the $ to fight it. Since you can't rely on court awarding legal fee's.

Re:Non-story (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 months ago | (#46272187)

In the unholy trinity (sex, drugs and copyright) you can't even rely on court to follow the law, considering that there are almost more contradictions than in the Bible.

Re:Non-story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46272827)

Legal fee's what? What belongs to the fee?

Re:Non-story (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 2 months ago | (#46272883)

That is a problem only if it actually gets to court. Filing a counter-claim costs nothing and the copyright holder may not file as it is obvious there is no infringement. Many copyright holders will file the first step of the process but never file with a court. The know that can scare some people into submission. Just follow the process, stand up to the bullies and they slink away.
Even if it goes to court there are many organisation such as the EFF which will fund this kind of defense. I bet many AIDS groups would fund defense of those videos. There is also a good chance that a motion for summary judgement citing Folsom V. Marsh [copyrightcodex.com] will make a very short case.

Re:Non-story (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 2 months ago | (#46271661)

He shouldn't tell them anything, he should send in the proper counter-notice

The reason why the films do not infringe is part of a proper counter-notice.

Re:Non-story (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 2 months ago | (#46271799)

There's also the fact that even with a counter-notice, the debunking stays down for at least 10 days.

Re:Non-story (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 2 months ago | (#46272303)

That is Youtube's fault. I'm not aware of any DMCA provision that requires the site to stay down for 10 days even after a counter-notice is filed.

Re:Non-story (0)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 2 months ago | (#46271587)

Sadly you are that dumb it seems. that process takes weeks if they find the DMCA claim to be fake. Even if they find them fair use and put them back up they can be taken down again by another bs DMCA claim and process starts over again.

Re:Non-story (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 2 months ago | (#46271621)

Google doesn't have to find anything fair use. The only thing they need is to receive a counter notice. With a counter notice, Google can put the video back, and whatever copyright infringement happened or hasn't happened has nothing to do with Google.

Re:Non-story (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 months ago | (#46271765)

Thats right. And they have 14 days to put the content back up after the counter claim else google doesn't get the automatic protections from damages in the DMCA from taking the content down. However, i believe their TOS already protects them.

Re:Non-story (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 2 months ago | (#46271751)

Starting with a personal attack does not help your case.

that process takes weeks if they find the DMCA claim to be fake.

This shows how little you know about the DMCA process. The provider does not make any determination. All they do is put the material back up unless the original claimant files suit and notifies the service provider. It is up to the courts to determine infringement not the service provider. By not filing a counter-notice the poster is not following the procedure.

As for subsequent claims that can be ignored as duplicates.

Re:Non-story (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46271931)

Shut up, shithead.

Re:Non-story (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#46271833)

No, it doesn't work that way. The same person can't issue a takedown for the same thing repeatedly. Claim, counter-claim, then it's up forever until sued for. The same person can't continue to re-file. And they can't get someone to file for them without risking running afoul of the rules on claims only being made by copyright holders.

Re:Non-story (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46271599)

You know who decides if a counter-claim is valid? The complaintant.

You know what provides grounds for a bank-account-draining lawsuit? A counter-claim.

Re:Non-story (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#46271847)

Nope. Just like the take-down is unverified, the counter-claim is also unverified. It does open up the poster to legal liabilities, but no more than the initial post. DMCA is about protecting the hosting entity, not the poster or copyright holder.

Re:Non-story (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 months ago | (#46271935)

Unfortunately we are not talking about DMCA, but youtube TOS, which is notorious for not giving a damn about users and only being interested in covering its own ass against potential liability.

Re:Non-story (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#46272053)

The TOS being complained about here is that if you don't defend your takedowns, then YouTube presumes you are a habitual offender, and it's easier for them to ban you permanently. If you post "questionable" content, be prepared to counter-notice. If you are going to post and run, then be prepared for the punishment when you violate the TOS.

There's no liability for YouTube here at all. They get notice, it comes down. They get counter-notice it comes back up. YouTube *Can't* be sued for that. They (could possibly, but highly unlikely) be sued for encouraging violations, and to prevent that, if you don't counter-claim they will eventually ban you.

Seems reasonable enough to me.

Re:Non-story (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 months ago | (#46272151)

You're quite clueless on the topic I see. Youtube's policy on takedowns goes above and beyond DMCA in an effort to placate large copyright holders. Complaint maker is in fact the person evaluating the counter claim and he can simply deny it. There is no recourse other than to sue after that, and even that would not be a guarantee of getting your video back on youtube - you could only sue for damages. Youtube itself is a private entity that has a right to take down anyone's video at any time for any reason it pleases.

When nintendo filed a wholesale bunch of claims on bigger "let's play" channels a few months ago, nothing saved those channels. They were killed regardless of counter claims because nintendo as the one who made the claim simply denied all the counter claims.

Re:Non-story (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#46272677)

Then YouTube isn't DMCA compliant, and is openeing themselves up to liability, even if the content was "illegal". I'd heard it described as DMCA compliant, and don't host anything questionable enough to find out on my own. DMCA doesn't allow a counter-claim to be evaluated. The reason it takes 14 days for a counter-claim to re-instate a work is to give the complaintant time to file a restraining order. If YouTube doesn't follow that, they can be successfully sued by a poster, even if the poster posted illegal works.

Re:Non-story (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 months ago | (#46272753)

DMCA "compliant" means that it's protected from copyright holders. Not that it grants rights to people posting videos. You appear to think that "DMCA compliant" means "follows DMCA to the letter, including all the rights granted to consumers". You could not be more wrong on the matter.

What it actually means is "it satisfies the party that can actually try to remove safe harbour status and sue for damages based on lack of it". I.e. copyright holders. People who are posting videos on youtube are not a part of the "protected" group in any way shape or form as they are not ones who are involved in status of "safe harbour". The only people against whom "safe harbour" protection matters after all, are copyright holders.

So it is indeed DMCA compliant as to maintain its safe harbour status, while being against both letter and spirit of DMCA when it comes to protection of video posters.

Re:Non-story (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 months ago | (#46272765)

To be specific. They will follow the counter claim. But counter claim is reviewed by the one who made the claim, who can simply reject the counter claim. Poster of the video has no legal leg to stand on, as youtube is a private service that claims a right to remove any video for any reason it deems necessary. It has not obligation whatsoever to the poster to keep their videos up.

Re:Non-story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46272789)

Wrong.
YouTube can remove content for any or no reason, read the TOS.
So they are perfectly in the clear when they "reinstate" content due to a DMCA counter-notice and immediately remove it again "because.".

Re:Non-story (2)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#46272771)

Content ID (Nintendo's use of automated detection of game cut scenes in Let's Play videos) and OCILLA notices of claimed infringement are two separate systems. I've faced both, and YouTube's OCILLA process is pretty much point-for-point 17 USC 512. Your beef is with Content ID.

Re:Non-story (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 months ago | (#46272851)

The process is exactly the same for both. The only difference is that content ID allows automatic matching, whereas claims are done manually. Both the process of making the claim and rejecting it remain largely the same.

I'm guessing you simply were facing someone who caved or wasn't serious about their claims. If someone makes a serious claim and can provide proof that they do indeed own the copyright, the only tool available to you as a poster is to stir up negative publicity and hope that is enough to make the claimant withdraw the claim or not reject your counter claim. Otherwise, you're out of luck, as claimant will simply reject your counter claim and copyright strike and takedown on your account and video will remain in force.

This has been and will continue to function as an excellent tool for censorship on youtube. It functioned this way before contentid was ever introduced on youtube, and will likely continue to function this way for foreseeable future. In fact, a lot of "personalities" that make money off youtube have been banging the drums about this problem for a long time now with no effect. Google simply doesn't give a damn.

Re:Non-story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46272461)

You know what provides grounds for a bank-account-draining lawsuit? A counter-claim.

Nope.

Oh really... lets test your hypothesis, shall we?

I file a DMCA takedown on something of yours.
You file the appropriate counter-claim to have it put back up.
I sue you into oblivion because my bank account is larger than yours.

Looks like your wrong. Now, if you would like to backtrack and claim "oh, what I actually meant was that the AIDS denialist can't possibly have the funds to do that", then I await your retcon.

Re:Non-story (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 2 months ago | (#46272739)

I file a DMCA takedown on something of yours.
You file the appropriate counter-claim to have it put back up.
I sue you into oblivion because my bank account is larger than yours.

I get friends from the EFF and other anti-censorship groups to fund trial.
We submit a simple motion for summary judgement based on fair use as commentary citing Folsom v. Marsh [yalelawtech.org]. The almost continual voice over makes it obvious commentary.
You lose trial and I am awarded costs.
Your bank account is much smaller.

Re:Non-story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46272801)

Looks like your wrong.

My wrong what? And how do you even know I have a wrong that looks like that?

Re:Non-story (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 2 months ago | (#46271973)

Wrong. The courts decides which claim is valid. The third step, after claim and counter-claim, is filing a lawsuit. If that suit is not filed the file goes back up.

A counter-claim only provides grounds of it is false or inaccurate.

Re:Non-story (2)

bugnuts (94678) | about 2 months ago | (#46271623)

Right. If you have enough copyright claims against you that are not disputed, youtube will simply remove your account.

This guy pissed off some folks who are making claims in bad faith, but if you're sure you're not violating the law you need to state so in a counter claim. At that point, it's no longer legal to file further DMCA takedown notices on the same material, and they have to take you to court to proceed. Multiple claims on the same clip [arstechnica.com] are considered misrepresentation. This is why it's suspicious to me that he received multiple takedown requests from one source, but maybe it was for different episodes.

Youtube is threatening to remove his account due to multiple unresolved dmca claims. Resolve them, and it goes away. It has little to do with AIDS deniers, except that they're tertiarily involved.

Re:Non-story (1)

bidule (173941) | about 2 months ago | (#46272293)

This guy pissed off some folks who are making claims in bad faith,

I am not sure it's that black and white.

I watched the 16 minutes first part. There are maybe 2 minutes of original video at the start and 2 more minutes of a Foo Fighter music video, leaving about 10 minutes of House of Number material.

He really did a convincing work on the montage and the voice-over, but NPOV must agree the majority of the video came from the deniers. Now I don't know how far fair use goes, but maybe they really have a case there. How did MST3K handle that?

Re:Non-story (2)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 2 months ago | (#46272637)

The fact that there was commentary over almost all of the video makes it fair use. There is a very old case that makes this clear.
Folsom v. Marsh [yalelawtech.org]

no one can doubt that a reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy.

It is clear that the vidios are criticism and do not supersede the original work.

Re:Non-story (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | about 2 months ago | (#46272715)

He really did a convincing work on the montage and the voice-over, but NPOV must agree the majority of the video came from the deniers. Now I don't know how far fair use goes, but maybe they really have a case there. How did MST3K handle that?

None of which is any concern of Youtube. They have absolutely nothing to say about fair use or not. They follow the letter of the law as written and preserve their Safe Harbor protections under the DMCA. Youtube's actions are out of their hands on both sides unless they are willing to jump into the fray and assume liability.

Re:Non-story (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about 2 months ago | (#46272769)

How did MST3K handle that?

In a straight-forward way. They paid money. That's one of the reasons they used the movies they did; they were cheap to use.

Re:Non-story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46271733)

Don't you know that it's the fault of corporations or big government when people aren't lead around by the dick?
 
Just like Big Pharma is to blame for chain smokers and the obese.

Re:Non-story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46272913)

The summary makes it look like YouTube is the bad guy when all they are doing is following the law and acting on the DMCA claims

I would tend to agree with you if Youtube was only planning on removing the actual video. Taking action against the entire account which hosted it has nothing at all to do with the DMCA and is fully on Youtube.

What is an "AIDS denialist"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46271487)

What does this mean exactly? Does it deny that AIDS exists? Does it deny that HIV leads to AIDS? Does it deny that non-gay people or non-Africans can get AIDS? Does it say it's all a government conspiracy and really caused by chemtrails?

One way or another, it doesn't sound like something that warrants debunking, but then again, I'm often surprised at just how stupid people can be.

Re:What is an "AIDS denialist"? (2)

iced_773 (857608) | about 2 months ago | (#46271579)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism [wikipedia.org]

Pretty much one or more of the above - it comes in different varieties. There are some flavors of denialism in Africa that claim [sourcewatch.org] the West even artificially created HIV to wipe out all black Africans.

Re:What is an "AIDS denialist"? (2)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 2 months ago | (#46271889)

And Liam Scheff is one of the more virulent practitioners of the art. This is the guy who infamously wrote [liamscheff.com] about the Incarnation Children's Center [wikipedia.org]:

"The drugs given to the children are toxic, known to cause genetic mutation, organ failure, bone marrow death, bodily deformations, brain damage and fatal skin disorders. If the children refuse the drugs, they’re held down and force fed. Should they continue to resist, they’re taken to Columbia University Presbyterian hospital, where a surgeon puts a plastic tube through their abdominal wall into their stomachs. The drugs are injected directly into their intestines. In 2003, two children, ages 6 and 12, had debilitating strokes due to drug toxicities. The 6-year-old went blind and they both died shortly after. Another 14 year old died later and an 8-year-old boy had two plastic surgeries to remove large, fatty, drug-induced lumps from his neck."

The NY State Department of Health investigated and found nothing to substantiate Scheff's claims.

Scheff is a complete nut-job, and a dangerous one at that. Scheff pointing fingers and crying "propaganda" is chutzpah at a pathological level.

Re:What is an "AIDS denialist"? (5, Informative)

rasmusbr (2186518) | about 2 months ago | (#46271611)

What does this mean exactly? Does it deny that AIDS exists? Does it deny that HIV leads to AIDS? Does it deny that non-gay people or non-Africans can get AIDS? Does it say it's all a government conspiracy and really caused by chemtrails?

One way or another, it doesn't sound like something that warrants debunking, but then again, I'm often surprised at just how stupid people can be.

It's not possible to find a single party line, but these are the most common beliefs AFAIK:

AIDS is caused by chemicals, big pharma, the government, the Bilderberg group, the Illuminati, space lizards, etc.
HIV either does not exist, or exists and is harmless, or exists and is harmful and created by evil men in their evil laboratories but does not cause AIDS.
Chemtrails could totally cause AIDS, but more evidence is needed. In other words some dude on the internet needs to write a speculative blogpost that claims that chemtrails cause AIDS before we can say with certainty that it does.

If you think this is harmless stupidity, think again. IIRC there is at least one case of an HIV positive mother who refused to test her child. The child later died in an illness with symptoms like those of someone who has AIDS. The mother also died, naturally.

Re:What is an "AIDS denialist"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46271653)

IIRC there is at least one case of an HIV positive mother who refused to test her child. The child later died in an illness with symptoms like those of someone who has AIDS. The mother also died, naturally.

That sounds a lot like Christine Maggiore

Which just happens to be one of the main figures in House of Numbers, and her backstory is brought up in part 1 of the videos in question...

http://www.dailymotion.com/sci... [dailymotion.com]

Re:What is an "AIDS denialist"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46271967)

This actually sounds a lot like *harmful* stupidity...

Re:What is an "AIDS denialist"? (3, Informative)

RDW (41497) | about 2 months ago | (#46272219)

If you think this is harmless stupidity, think again. IIRC there is at least one case of an HIV positive mother who refused to test her child. The child later died in an illness with symptoms like those of someone who has AIDS. The mother also died, naturally.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. In South Africa, HIV denialists advised by the Duesberg cult were in charge of public health policy for several years, leading to a tragedy of genocidal proportions:

http://www.theguardian.com/wor... [theguardian.com]

Re:What is an "AIDS denialist"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46272227)

I feel sorry for the child, but at least natural selection (wrt intelligence/gullibility) is getting rid of some of the stupid.

Sometimes I think there needs to be a rudimentary test before allowing parents legal guardianship of their offspring.

Re:What is an "AIDS denialist"? (-1, Troll)

Arker (91948) | about 2 months ago | (#46272345)

It's interesting that you characterize it by describing obviously ignorant beliefs and let us say low-rent characters, with no mention of any actual AIDS skeptics. Drs Duesberg Rasnick and Farmer dont exist in your world, right? And certainly Dr Mullis (the inventor of the PCR test used in AIDS clinics worldwide) never existed, right?

No, clearly those people do not exist, I must have dreamed them, because only drop outs who live in trailer parks ever doubt the official story, even for a moment.

Without any opinion at all on which side is right about the disease, the rhetorical tactics used by those who take position as defenders of orthodoxy does seem to tend towards the dishonest, and your post was a good example of this. It seems to me that if you were truly as confident of the conclusion as you wish to appear, you would not feel the need to stoop to this.

Re:What is an "AIDS denialist"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46272633)

lol you retard

Re:What is an "AIDS denialist"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46272635)

And still none of knows what AIDS deniers believe according to you. Well done. What a great waste of three paragraphs of text.

Re:What is an "AIDS denialist"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46272791)

Also, I looked up this so called Dr Duesberg and he believes exactly what the OP mentioned.
Namely that HIV is harmless, and AIDS is caused by chemicals and of course by "teh gay".
Right. I'm just going to assume those two other people you mentioned are crackpots as well.
So it seems to me that the OP perfectly described what these people believe.

Also who keeps modding this nutjob up? Have you people even looked into what these people believe?
If AIDS was caused by drugs only drug users would have AIDS. If AIDS was caused by gay only gays would have AIDS.
If HIV was harmless leaving it untreated wouldn't kill you.

Next your going to tell me there are people who don't believe in radiation and that all those people at Chernobyl died from bad humours.
These people should be punished the same way we punish holocaust deniers.
Oh wait I know, it must be conspiracy Tuesday.
I've got one: The Zionists planned the holocaust so they could get Britain to hand over Palestine to them.
Now I'll get modded up too right?

Re:What is an "AIDS denialist"? (1)

ne0n (884282) | about 2 months ago | (#46271667)

thx @JustineSacco for TRUE FACT: whites protected from AIDS by skin tone #FuckBeta

Re:What is an "AIDS denialist"? (0)

Arker (91948) | about 2 months ago | (#46271837)

"Denialist" is obviously a slur word, your suspicious side should perk up the moment you hear it.

In this case, it is used to refer to anyone that doubts the pronouncement that HIV=AIDS. Several prominent researchers have fell into that category from the day that conclusion was announced.

There are several different alternative hypotheses, for instance Duesberg argues that HIV is harmless, a very weak virus that is found only in the blood of people experiencing immune collapse (for some other reason) because a healthy immune system wipes it out immediately. Just an opportunistic infection that can be used as a diagnostic.

On the other hand, the Perth group IIRC actually argues that there is no such thing as HIV at all. They challenge the claim that it's ever been properly isolated, and the best I recall they basically argue that what is being detected as HIV is simply cellular trash of a kind typical of an individual with severely compromised immunities.

Re:What is an "AIDS denialist"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46272039)

Thing about denialism and other bad science and psuedoscience is that they don't discard their hypotheses when they're demonstrated to be false.

backwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46272119)

Yes, this is true, but it's deeper than that. Bad science, denialism and similar match evidence to a pre-existing truth assertion or hypothesis. The original hypothesis is initially presumed to be true - it is the gold standard starting place for these people. Evidence which supports this pre-established truth is therefore true, and evidence which refutes it is false. It's the exact opposite of real science.

Re:What is an "AIDS denialist"? (0)

Arker (91948) | about 2 months ago | (#46272163)

And the thing about the priests of scientism is that they once they feel confident in a conclusion it becomes like a religious dogma. Once they have a council and get all the archbishops to agree on this conclusion it is in their eyes forever true and beyond question.

More than that, not just ordinary truth, but an ineffable, infallible truth, the very essence of all that is good. And anyone that questions it is thus promoting all that is evil, so these priests of course believe they are perfectly justified in using any and all means necessary to choke out the unbelievers, the skeptics - making it virtually impossible to fund and carry out research that does not explicitly accept and assume that conclusion. Which makes it exceedingly difficult to prove their hypothesis false, of course. Good for their personal positions, but very bad for science itself.

Because Science is not a secular religion. Science is a method for ascertaining reality. One that presumes and requires the very skepticism that the priests fight as a mortal enemy.

not generally a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46272259)

Although what you describe DOES happen, there are only a few cases where it is a problem. The vast, vast majority of "scientific dogma" type beliefs really do have no valid counter-evidence whatsoever. Pretending there is pretty much always ends up being a waste of time. This includes things like man-made climate change or evolution where 100% of the real science is on the same side of the debate.

If a scientific theory is questioned with good reason, it will generally get a second look. No, it's not always the case, but people, even scientists can be slow to accept things. There is a talk on TED-X from a guy addressing exactly that - questioning the stability of certain physical constants. It was banned from TED, and I think it was one of the best talks I've seen about the problem of scientific dogma which you speak of.

Re:What is an "AIDS denialist"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46272301)

Paranoid rants about your scientismist boogeymen are of no interest to us. Please try to stay on-topic in the future. Thanks for your cooperation, and have a blessed day.

Re:What is an "AIDS denialist"? (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 2 months ago | (#46272839)

priests of scientism

Non-existent priests of something that doesn't exist.

once they feel confident in a conclusion it becomes like a religious dogma. Once they have a council and get all the archbishops to agree on this conclusion it is in their eyes forever true and beyond question.

Care to highlight some examples of this behavior?

Science is a method for ascertaining reality. One that presumes and requires the very skepticism that the priests fight as a mortal enemy.

I see you're tilting at windmills here, never mind.

"denialist" (0)

oldhack (1037484) | about 2 months ago | (#46271535)

Someone calls other(s) "denialist", I see a demagogue asswipe.

And/or a click troll.

Re:"denialist" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46271697)

They are denialist. They deny western medicines view on AIDs. They are idiots just like you.

Re:"denialist" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46271721)

I'm looking for a dentist, can you advise? Thank you, sir.

Re:"denialist" (1, Flamebait)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 months ago | (#46271741)

"Denialist" is the new "Racist"; a meaningless term intended to shut down debate.

Wow. Just wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46271873)

Yes, it IS a term like racist, but both are valid and useful terms. Racists are people who are too mindblowingly ignorant to deserve to live in society. Denialists, likewise, are those who deny what's right in front of their fucking faces, and again, are too mindblowingly ignorant to deserve to live in society.

Yes, they ARE terms used to shut down debate, because there is no point debating with people too stupid to process fucking obvious things that are right in front of their faces. If on one end of a debate there is a racist or denialist, there's simply no debate to be had.

Re:Wow. Just wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46271985)

We just need to get it over with and burn them all.

Re:Wow. Just wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46272591)

The jews?

Re:Wow. Just wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46272667)

No, the niggers.
Remember, it's the new "Racist", not the new "Antisemitist".

Re:"denialist" (1)

hey! (33014) | about 2 months ago | (#46272517)

I recommend the Wikipedia article on Denialism, which starts with a definition:

In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth.

Racism has three definitions listed in the Wiktionary entry:

1. The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
2. The belief that one race is superior to all others.
3. Prejudice or discrimination based upon race.

Of course beliefs referenced are predicated on the folk concept of race, which doesn't hold up to biological scrutiny.

Re:"denialist" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46272651)

do you also deny the existence of different breeds of dogs, or that some breeds are smarter on average...

Re:"denialist" (2)

hey! (33014) | about 2 months ago | (#46272879)

I certainly do not deny the existence of different breeds of dogs, but these are by no means analogous to the folk scientific concept of human "race".

There are three factors which account for the distinctiveness of dog breeds:

(1) Dogs are domesticated animals and thus less genetically diverse than humans, who are wild animals.

(2) The dog genome produces anomalously high variation in phenotype with slight differences in genotype, in comparison to other mammals.

(3) Dogs reach sexual maturity as early as six months old.

These factors make dogs ideal for developing distinct types that breed true. None of these things are true of humans. Humans do not breed true in the way dogs do; siblings resemble each other much less than dog litter mates.

Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46271827)

Ok, so there's supposedly no significant recourse if somebody lies when making a false DMCA claim, or at least that's what everyone always says in such cases.

Wouldn't false claims be covered by laws pertaining to, say, fraud? Or, given that it's a document that accuses the target of a crime, libel?

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46271921)

For something like this... no, not really.
To get anywhere, you'd have to prove intent... i.e. the claimant *knew* their claims were bogus from the start.
Considering the DMCAed videos do actually contain clips from the film... good luck with that.

Unconstitutional (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 months ago | (#46272123)

This is clearly an unconstitutional restraint of journalism.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

Come on man.

Psst - hey kid... (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 2 months ago | (#46272177)

...this has nothing to do with the government. Nobody here is "the government" - it's just three private parties arguing over who's shit got posted to youtube.

Do AIDS denialists disbelief other STD'S? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46272695)

Or is it just AIDS that gets singled-out?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...